Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But do they have the same low standards for evidence required to remove the kids ? Or are the standards more stringent ?
Surely, the safety of children should come first - wouldn't you agree ?
So how come that it takes so much evidence and procedural requirements to remove the kids from a potentially violent household, but so little to remove guns ?
If the law is written out of the genuine concern for the safety of people in a potentially violent household, the standard for evidence should be the same. Otherwise, it seems strange that there's enough concern to remove the guns, but not enough to put children in a safe place.
However, the discrepancy in the standards makes perfect sense if the law is being used to reduce the number of guns in homes across the state, and the "potential threat" claim is just a pretense.
I don't think too many people would object to that law if it required the government to provide the same level of evidence the CPS needs to remove the kids from a violent home.
This isn't just about domestic violence. It's about someone calling up the police and saying "my uncle seems off to me, he has a gun in his house". When they're angry at the uncle because he wouldn't loan them money.
You don't want to look at the "what ifs". When a law comes into existence(that wasn't even voted on) you have to look at the "what ifs" and the ramifications. God forbid we do any critical thinking or analyze anything huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seain dublin
The FL law I mentioned, no one looked at the "what ifs", and the law is now abused.
And if it's not a gun it can be a knife. You can go into your kitchen and find weapons.